Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

Published on 16 Mar 2021 IMPACT: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed by the United States Congress in 1993 to prohibit the federal government from burdening a person’s free exercise of religion. Currently, twenty-one states have also passed religious freedom restoration acts.

FACTSHEET: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT OF 1993 …​

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah, it is a terrible ruling. But this judge is famous for such things.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

AIDS isn’t a Gay Disease and as you stated it can be transmitted many other ways including usage of needles during drug usage.

Only a idiot ( we have many ) would attempt to label AIDS as a Gay disease and use religious bigotry to deny someone the expensive medication to keep the person alive.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Should employers be required to provide medical coverage for major anal trauma as well?
Are the employers not allowed to choose the plans they want to provide to employees or should the govt force them to cover everything?

Not everything can be covered under a medical insurance plan, not even with socialized medicine like Obamacare.
It is cost prohibitive

 

[JustAGuy1]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

I don't agree with this at all.

 

[TNHarley]

Its their business. If the people dont like it they can leave.

 

[Calypso Jones]

um.....democrat run gov't denied covid patients the use of certain drugs that had been shown to be effective EVEN BY FAUCI prior to 2019.

The democrats have INCREASED the price...double...of the epi pens for those disposed to potentially deadly allergic reactions. AFter President Trump had DECREASED the price.

AND...hospitals are still denying life saving surgeries to men women AND CHILDREN who do not want to take the gov't sponsored clot shots.

You gys. LOLOL Ya didn't have a problem WITH THAT!!!

 

[westwall]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

Wrong. Religions get to choose what they do. just like people get to choose to work for a corporation or not. It is only fascists who force people to work for specific organizations and control all aspects of those organizations as well.

In other words,

lighten up.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

It isnt up the employer at all, but the insurance companies if they want to. Just like with smoking, if you do something that proves to be deadly(Butt fucking) then either your costs go way way up, or you are dropped because of the risk. Stupid fucks like you, who never had a job in your lifetime wouldnt know this.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

AIDS isn’t a Gay Disease and as you stated it can be transmitted many other ways including usage of needles during drug usage.

Only a idiot ( we have many ) would attempt to label AIDS as a Gay disease and use religious bigotry to deny someone the expensive medication to keep the person alive.

Oh it was a very faggotry diseased until all you queers started sleeping around and donated blood.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Its their business. If the people dont like it they can leave.

See, this is the kind of ruling I could have supported.

Had the judge just said the Fed Govt has no right to tell a company what to cover, period....I would have been on his side.

But to hide behind religion like a punk is wrong

 

[TNHarley]

See, this is the kind of ruling I could have supported.

Had the judge just said the Fed Govt has no right to tell a company what to cover, period....I would have been on his side.

But to hide behind religion like a punk is wrong

In what world is that fair?
The business down the road can do it because he is christian but i cant because im agnostic? WTF

 

[Oddball]

Its their business. If the people dont like it they can leave.

Amazing how it's "MUH PRIVATE BIDNESS!" when it's Fascitbook and Twaffler censoring at the behest of The State, but this is an alleged outrage, innit?

 

[Polishprince]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

What's the problem here? Anyone who doesn't like it, doesn't have to work for him.

Those that insist on working for this outfit are free to buy their own aids drugs or find someone else to buy the drugs for them.

Its still a free country.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Should employers be required to provide medical coverage for major anal trauma as well?

Anal on your mind I see. Are you anal retentive or anal expulsive? I would think retentive. Kind of uptight

There are various causes for anal trauma including crazy shit that heterosexuals do. Should employers, insurance carriers be able to decide coverage based on cause? THINK!

 

[surada]

Judge: Employers Don't Have To Cover HIV Meds If They Oppose 'Homosexual Behavior'

A federal judge who frequently sides with conservatives just handed anti-LGBTQ Christian employers a big win.

www.huffpost.com

This is outragious! Not everyone who contracts HIV is a homosexual. It can be the result of heterosexual sex as well, or a blood transfusion, or maybe from being attacked by someone with HIV. So if they are going to refuse coverage to gay people with HIV, they had better damned well refuse coverage to all workers with HIV or it's discrimination and in conflict with Obergefell

As far as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act goes, discrimination is not a free excercise of religion. It is DISCRININATION

The judge is a moron.

 

[Polishprince]

Anal on your mind I see. Are you anal retentive or anal expulsive? I would think retentive. Kind of uptight

There are various causes for anal trauma including crazy shit that heterosexuals do. Should employers, insurance carriers be able to decide coverage based on cause? THINK!

If employers don't like it, of course they should be able to deny coverage.

BTW, I'd say the same if a Homo Employer denied some broad coverage for pregnancy as well- since that is apparently caused by heterosexual activity which he opposes.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Are the employers not allowed to choose the plans they want to provide to employees or should the govt force them to cover everything?

I doubt that there are any plans that have a blanket exclusion for HIV treatment. I think that these people are trying to cut side deals with insurers to deny coverage for HIV or to "certain people" with HIV. Doing so is not only unconstitutional but they may well find that they have run afoul of insurance regulators

 

[TNHarley]

Amazing how it's "MUH PRIVATE BIDNESS!" when it's Fascitbook and Twaffler censoring at the behest of The State, but this is an alleged outrage, innit?

We know how disingenuous people are

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not everything can be covered under a medical insurance plan, not even with socialized medicine like Obamacare.
It is cost prohibitive

What "socialized Medicine" ?Are the hospitals and drug companies now nationalised? Do doctors all work for the government.? It is not even socialised insurance since we still do not have a single payer system. In fact the private insurers are doing quite administering government programs like Medicare thru Medicare Advantage an supplimental plans.

But in any case, everything can and should be covered. It is cost effective when you consider the cost of having people who get sick and die when that outcome was preventable You people always want to talk about the cost, but you NEVER want to talk about the benefits. Why is that?